Cochise County supervisors adopt resolution opposing current Mexican gray wolf reintroduction implementation

The Cochise County Board of Supervisors voted 3-0 on July 22 to adopt Resolution 25-21 expressing opposition to the current implementation of the Mexican gray wolf reintroduction program and calling for reforms. Board members moved the item up in the agenda because of audience interest; following public comment that included ranchers, conservationists and residents, the board debated whether the federal program was properly designed, whether ranchers were being adequately compensated, and whether suitable habitat and binational cooperation exist to sustain wolves in Cochise County. Speakers who urged the board to oppose the program said wolves threaten livestock livelihoods and that the program was rolled out without adequate compensation or stakeholder agreements. James Schmidt, who identified himself as a retired USDA wildlife specialist, told the board, "Today's board of supervisor resolution 25-21 opposing the ongoing Mexican gray wolf program in Cochise County is the correct action to take." Several ranchers and residents spoke in that view and asked for stronger compensation and enforcement mechanisms. Other speakers urged tolerance and a science-based approach. Dr. Letris Neals, who described her work reducing livestock-wildlife conflicts, told the board that predators can improve ecosystem health and that "wolves are economically worth their weight in gold and ecologically priceless." Young speakers, including 11-year-old Aurelia Neals, spoke in favor of protecting wolves and said removing packs, including pups, was "unnecessary and heartbreaking." Board discussion emphasized two recurring themes: the program's implementation and local economic impacts. One supervisor said the program was "flawed from the very beginning" and criticized how compensation and stakeholder collaboration were handled; another said Cochise County lacks adequate prey base and cross-border coordination to sustain wolves and called for Mexico's participation. Supervisors also noted the resolution supports county resources for ranch patrols, data collection, and an on-the-ground agent rather than a Phoenix-based contact. The clerk recorded that the board received at least 20 speaker-request forms from people opposing the resolution, 32 in support, and several anonymous submissions. The board approved the resolution without amendments; the recorded vote was three in favor, none opposed. The resolution as adopted expresses opposition to current implementation and calls for reforms, including better compensation for livestock losses and improved data and coordination; it does not itself change county law or direct lethal action. The board and speakers repeatedly separated public comment from formal board action: several advocates asked the supervisors to table the resolution for further expert input; the board adopted it instead.